experienced praying donating

EVAN LENOW 55
to marry in addition, so as to have more than one wife living: and,
surely, in case of an adulteress or adulterer being left, it would be
possible that more men should be born, if either the woman were
married to another, or the man should marry another. And yet, if
this be not lawful, as the Divine Rule seems to prescribe, who is
there but it must make him attentive to learn, what is the meaning
of this so great strength of the marriage bond? 46
Augustine excludes both polygamy and divorce for the purpose of subsequent
remarriage as options for producing offspring. This is due to the theological
significance of the unity of marriage. The bond is so strong because
it points to “some greater matter from out this weak mortal state of men.” 47
The greater matter is the bond between Christ and the church to which marriage
points (Eph 5:31–32). In much the same way that Christ stays true to
his bride and continues in unity despite her difficulties, the husband must
stay true to his wife. Despite the difficulties that may come to the church,
the bond between Christ and his bride grows deeper with time. Even when
the pain of infertility hits home, a husband and wife grow deeper in unity by
weathering the storms together. This is one way in which the husband and
wife demonstrate the analogous unity of Christ and the church. The bond
grows through both good times and bad.
Introducing third-party gametes into the procreative process violates
the distinctive unity of marriage by introducing a third party into the bond
of marriage for the purpose of attaining a particular end. Meilaender offers
this extended commentary on the connection between unity and procreation
with third-party gametes:
There are, then, good reasons for Christians to reject any process
of assisted reproduction that involves sperm or ova donated by a
third party. Even if the desire of an infertile couple to have children
is laudable and their aim praiseworthy, even if we know of
instances in which assisted reproduction seems to have brought
happy results, it is the wrong method for achieving those results.
What we accomplish may seem good; what we do is not. For in
aiming at this desired accomplishment we begin to lose the sense
of biological connection that is important to human life, we tempt
ourselves to think of the child as a product of our rational will,
and we destroy the intimate connection between the love-giving
and life-giving aspects of the one-flesh marital union. We should
not hesitate to regard reproduction that makes use of third party
collaborators as wrong—even when the collaboration seems to
be in a good cause. 48
46
Ibid., 402.
47
Ibid.
48
Meilaender, Bioethics, 18–19.